The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1887-11-02

Conl'r for the coming fiscal year De
not paid him, but be applied to the
common school fund of the county.
Also that the pay of lst grade teach
ers be reduced from $50 to S25 per
month; of 2nd grade from $50 to
$15; 3rd, from SIS to $3.50. That
in the town Of Manning two grad
ed schools be eStablished-one for
the whites and one for the colored.
We ascertained that there isa dis
cYepancy of about $500 between the
book OF the School Commissioner
and that OF the Treasurer. This be-
E; ing The case, we thought it best to
wait until the annual settlement
/ between The Auditor and Treasur-
er, as we would then be enabled to
! firL out he exact amount OF cash
on hand to the credit Of the school
/ fund, and also to examine the
/ school checks in the hands Of the
: Treasurer. which are his vouchers.
! This was Aug. -.tl1. The settlement
was postponed from time to time
/: until Sept 3rd, when the Comp.
! Gen. came down to Manning to as
certain what was the cause Of the
/ delay. He found that the books of
! Ex-Auditor J. < Scott were in such
q confused condition that the set
| tlement was a that time impracti-
! cable. He ordered the two "Du-
plicate Tax Books" sent to Colum-
i bia to be placed in the hands of an
expert to be examined and compar-
! ed with the Abstract sent his Office
j in order that the Abstract might
! be verified and become the basis of
the settlement. These books were
returned to Manning Sept. 13. The
following letter explains itself:
] COLUMBIA, S. c., Sept. II, 1887.
! l:Lr. T. p. Cooper, Mayesrille. s. c.
lfY dear SIR:-When we met in
! Manning some ten days ago prom
! ised to give you the result Of my
examination Of the County Audi
! tors Duplicates. made d careful
examination Of these hooks and
: Yesterday returned them to the
! County Auditor with a correct ab-
stract as basis for settlement
! with The Treasurer. Ny examina-
-tion shows that the County Audi
tor's Duplicate which is the origi-
! nal, or book OF record, has never
! been completed or properly pre-
i pared. and that instructions on the
subject Of how it should be written
up, have not been followed. No
! tccsS 3rere entered on this book ut
cU. In many instances the col
r,!i,s were not footed up-page af-
! rer page was without a single en-
! try Of POI! tax, although the par
ties have this tax charged against
; thera in the Treasurer's Duplicate,
ana there were erroneous entries,
especially that of the railroad tax,
/ w,Eich was entered as $l2l,000 in
stead Of $154, 400. AS a book of rec
Ord, therefore, this book in its pres
/ ent condition is -valueless. The
! Ireasurer's Duplicate should be an
exact copy of the Auditors Dupli-
! cate, c@e3y entry on the latter being
carried 20 the former, in the same
! page. and same line, and the two
cooks agreeing il every particular.
This book is also prepared by the
Auditor, and is given by him to
the Treasurer as his authority for
collecting the taxes therein charged.
While this Duplicate is prepared
/ with more care than the Auditors,
! 4 has also number of errors, al
most entirely clerical, and on this
book the Railroad tax is not
Charged at all. These two books
Go not agree, and are therefore moi
properly duplicates. When the
Auditor completes his book, he is
required to send to the Co;ap. Gen.
4 certified abstract of the same
showing the amount of property
charged, together with the taxes
levied thereon, and on the back Of
this abstract the Treasurer is re-
quircd to certify that he has recind
his duplicate and compared it with
the Aud;tor's-that the two books
agree, page by page, ard that they
ootn have been properly written
up and proved. This abstract was
li!ed in Oct. 1886. AS it has al
ready been stated, that these books
did not agree, it follows as a mat
ter OF course, that this abstract
was Tot correct, anG as the abstract
was .he voucher upon which the
NreaSUrer'S settlement was to be
based, the discovery of this discrc-
pancy made the settlement i'm
practicable. I found that the Aud
itor had disregarded Instructions
II another important particular,
ana that is, in the matter Of par
ties whose names were not On the
duplicate. He is required, when
such party presents himself, to as
sess his property, and give him a
notice to the Treasurer, to collect
his lax, 01ed Immediately to enter
the name On his duplicate, adding
it to the Treasurer's Duplicate as
soon as he has access TO that book,
but his practice has been simply to
give these "notices," without max
ing any record of them at all, and
afterwards to aggregate them in
cooperation with the Treasurer,
and to keep the result on a sepa-